Wednesday, May 31, 2017

For
about a year now, I have participated in a number of threads at Paul Williams'
(a Muslim apologist) blog: Blogging Theology.
During this period, Paul, and a few other BT Muslim contributors, have
displayed a penchant for attacking the Gospel of John. These attacks utilize
works produced by modern, liberal, higher critical, scholars. If memory serves
me correctly, my first interaction with Paul's use of critical/liberal
scholarship concerning the Gospel of John was back in June, 2016 (see THIS
THREAD). Since then, at least a half-dozen subsequent threads have
been published at BT that focus on the denigration of the Gospel via the use of
liberal scholarship—the most recent example was posted on May 12, 2017 (LINK).

Missing
from all these critical BT threads on the Gospel of John is ANY reference to
the dozens of works that have been published which provide solid support for
both the Johannine authorship and historical reliability of John's Gospel. The
purpose of this post is to address that conspicuous void.

The
seeds that were planted which would later give rise to full assaults on the
Gospel of John took place during the growth of rationalism in the mid-17th thru
early 18th centuries. The rationalism of which I speak is that form which
rejects any religious claim as an epistemological basis for truth. Deism was
one form of this rationalism, and it was the English deist, Edward Evanson, who
became the first individual to openly challenge the authenticity of the Gospel
of John since the 2nd century A.D. when a small sect—later termed the Alogi by
Epiphanius—attributed the Gospel of John to the Gnostic heretic Cerinthus. So
until 1792—when Evanson published his, The Dissonance of the
Four Generally Received Evangelists: And the Evidence of
Their Respective Authenticity, Examined—for nearly 1,600 years,
the authenticity of John's Gospel remained universally unchallenged. Since
1792, the attacks on John's Gospel have multiplied like weeds, to the point
that in our day, the defenders of the authenticity of John's Gospel are now in
the minority. The assessment of one of the ablest defenders of John's Gospel, Joseph
Barber Lightfoot—which was part of a lecture first delivered in 1867—sets the
tone for our topic at hand, and is as relevant today, as it was back in the
19th century:

The genuineness of St John's Gospel is the centre of the position of those who uphold the historical truth of the record of our Lord Jesus Christ given us in the New Testament. Hence the attacks of the opponents of revealed religion are concentrated upon it. So long however as it holds its ground, these assaults must inevitably prove ineffective. The assailants are of two kinds : (1) those who deny the miraculous element in Christianity—Rationalists, (2) those who deny the distinctive character of Christian doctrine—Unitarians. The Gospel
confronts both. (J. B. Lightfoot, "External Evidence for the Authenticity
and Genuineness of St. John's Gospel", Biblical Essays, Hendrickson
Publishers 1994 reprint of the Macmillan 1893, 1904 edition, page 47- PDF copy
available online HERE.)

Joseph Barber Lightfoot
was a scholar of the highest rank. A concise, yet
informative biography by Fenton J.A. Hort is found in the 33rd volume of the Dictionary
of National Biography, 1885-1900, pages 232-240 (LINK).
From that entry, we read:

What impression
Lightfoot made on an eminently competent foreign critic and theologian, not
personally known to him, may be learned from a tribute paid by Adolf Harnack,
professor of church history at Berlin, in the ‘Theologische Literaturzeitung’
of 14 June 1890. ‘His editions and commentaries … as well as his critical
dissertations have an imperishable value, and even where it is impossible to
agree with his results, his grounds are never to be neglected. The respect for
his opponent which distinguished him … has brought him the highest respect of
all parties. … There never has been an apologist who was less of an advocate
than Lightfoot. … Not only measured by the standard of the official theology of
the English church was he an independent free scholar, but he was this likewise
in the absolute sense of the words. He has never defended a tradition for the
tradition's sake.’ (Pages 239, 240)

Now, as noted, the above
referenced lecture was first delivered in 1867, but was not published until
1893. It was the first of three extended contributions on the Gospel of John by
Dr. Lightfoot. As suggested by the title, the focus of this first treatment was
the, "External Evidence for the Authenticity and Genuineness of St. John's
Gospel". Just prior to presenting a virtual mountain of early, external
evidence for Johannine authorship, Lightfoot provides the following background
information:

But, before commencing the investigation, let us first see what is the nature of the antagonism with which we have to deal. The history of the controversy may be seen in Bleek. Briefly stated, the position of affairs is this. The universal reception of the Gospel as the work of St John (with the exception of an obscure sect) up to the close of the last century has been assailed in the early years of the present century by a series of writers, who unite in denying the Johannine authorship, and place the date somewhere in the middle or latter half of the second century. (pp. 49, 50)

He then references the names
of seven liberal scholars, whose attacks on John's Gospel were published
between 1820 and 1867, and then states:

In reviewing this list of writers, we cannot fail to be struck with two facts : (1) the variety of their opinions ; (2) their gradual retrogression from the extreme position taken up at first. The pressure of facts has compelled them to abandon one position after another, and to approximate more and more closely to the traditional view. (pp. 50,
51)

Interestingly enough,
"the nature of the antagonism with which we have to deal" from today's
deniers of Johannine
authorship,
is pretty much the same, for "the variety of their opinions" has not diminished. I would also add
that the variety of new theories advanced since Lightfoot's day have offered
nothing which would give one cause for genuine concern after one has objectively
examined Lightfoot's external evidences.

Shortly after presenting
his external evidences, Lightfoot then delivered a lecture in 1871 which
focused on the internal evidences. That lecture was first published in 1890 in
three installments, and is included in the above referenced book, Biblical
Essays (pages 3-44). Also included in the same book are additional
lecture-notes concerning further internal evidences (pages 123-198). One
important internal evidence, is that the author of John's Gospel had to have
been a Jew. On this issue Lightfoot stated:

First of all then, the writer was a Jew. This might be inferred with a very high degree of probability from his Greek style alone. It is not ungrammatical Greek, but it is distinctly Greek of one long accustomed to think and speak through the medium of another language. The Greek language is singularly rich in its capabilities of syntactic construction,
and it is also well furnished with various connecting particles. The two languages with which a Jew of Palestine would be most familiar—the Hebrew, which was the language of the sacred Scriptures, and the Aramaic, which was the medium of communication in daily life—being closely allied to each other, stand in direct contrast to the Greek in this respect. There is comparative poverty of inflexions, and there is an extreme paucity of connecting and relative particles. Hence in Hebrew and Aramaic there is little or no syntax, properly so called.

Tested by his style then, the writer was a Jew. Of all the New Testament writings the Fourth Gospel is the most distinctly Hebraic in this respect. The Hebrew simplicity of diction will at once strike the reader. There is an entire absence of periods, for which the Greek language affords such facility. The sentences are co-ordinated, not subordinated. The clauses are strung together, like beads on a string. The very monotony of arrangement, though singularly impressive, is wholly unlike the Greek style of the age. (Pages 16, 17)

And:

The Hebrew character of the diction moreover shows itself in other ways : by the parallelism of the sentences, by the repetition of the same words in different clauses, by the order of the words, by the syntactical constructions,
and by individual expressions. Indeed so completely is this character maintained throughout, that there is hardly a sentence which might not be translated literally into Hebrew or Aramaic, without any violence to the language or to the sense.

I might point also to the interpretation of Aramaic words, as Cephas, Gabbatha, Golgotha, Messias, Rabboni, Siloam, Thomas, as indicating knowledge of this language. On such isolated phenomena however no great stress can fairly be laid, because such interpretations do not necessarily require an extensive acquaintance with the language ; and when
the whole cast and colouring of the diction can be put in evidence, an individual word here and there is valueless in comparison. (Pages 17, 18)

After providing a number
of other evidences that the writer was a Hebrew, he states:

Having thus established the fact that the writer was neither a Gentile nor a Hellenist, but a Hebrew of the Hebrews, we will proceed to inquire further whether he evinces an acquaintance with the manners and feelings, and also with the geography and history (more especially the contemporary history) of Palestine, which so far as our knowledge goes (and in dealing with such questions we must not advance one step beyond our knowledge) would be morally impossible with even a Hebrew Christian at the supposed date, long after the political existence of the nation had been obliterated, and when the disorganization of Jewish society was complete. (Page 22)

Lightfoot goes on to
provide solid evidences that the writer was not only a Hebrew, but a Hebrew of
Palestine, and a Hebrew who clearly had firsthand knowledge of Jesus; was a
disciple of Jesus; and an apostle of Jesus. As to which apostle, he leaves us
with no doubt that it was, "John the son of Zebedee." The lecture
notes published in Biblical Essays on pages 125-198 provide even greater
detail—those who have a working knowledge of Greek and Hebrew will certainly
appreciate the depth and breadth of Lightfoot's research.

These three contributions
of Dr. Lightfoot comprise nearly 200 pages of apologia for the Johannine authorship and historical
integrity of John's gospel. To date, of the dozens of theories advanced in an
attempt to undermine the Johannine authorship and historical integrity of John's gospel, I
have yet to read one that has given me cause to jettison Lightfoot's
conclusions.

But Dr. Lightfoot was
certainly not a lone defender of the Johannine authorship and historical integrity of John's gospel.
A near equal in intellect and knowledge was Frederic Louis Godet. This Swiss
theologian was a contemporary of Lightfoot's, and the professor of Biblical
Exegesis and Critical Theology at the Theological School of the National Swiss
Church in Neufchatel. In 1864/65, his massive Commentary on John's Gospel was
published in French, and in 1886 an English translation of the French third
edition was released, comprising a total 0f 1,112 pages (Links to 3 volume PDF
version HERE ). The first 219 pages of the English version is a
survey of the controversy, and subsequent defense, concerning the Johannine authorship and historical
integrity of John's gospel.

As Lightfoot, he deals
with the external and internal evidences. I found one section of the internal
evidences particularly helpful, that which compared John's Gospel with the
Synoptics. Many critical/liberal scholars have advanced the notion that a
number of teachings presented in John's Gospel are substantially different from
those within the Synoptics. After examining some alleged differences, Godet
writes:

It is impossible, then, to detect an essentialdifference, that is to say, one bearing on the matter of the teaching, between the Synoptics and the fourth Gospel. (Page
116)

On pages 118-119, he
provides a number of side-by-side parallels between John's Gospel and the
Synoptics that critics tend to ignore.

In the preface, Godet
provides his readers a personal assessment of all the germane data—positive and
negative— that he carefully examined at length:

The result of this renewed study has been in my case the ever more firm scientificconviction of the
authenticity of the
writing which
the Church has handed down to us under the name of John. There is a conviction of a different nature which forms itself in the heart on the simple reading of such a book. This conviction does not grow up; it is immediate, and consequently complete, from the first moment. It resembles confidence and love at first sight, that decisive impression to the integrity of which thirty years of common life and mutual devotion add nothing.

Scientific study cannot form a bond like this ; what it can do is only to remove the hostile pressure which threatens to loosen or to break it. Truly, I can say that I have never felt this scientific assurance so confirmed as after this new examination of the proofs on which it rests and the reasons recently
alleged against it.
(Page viii)

With Godet and Lightfoot,
we have over 400 pages of scholarly defense concerning the Johannine authorship and historical
integrity of John's gospel; scholarship that is a must read for both those who
attack, and those who defend, the Gospel of John. But there is more, much more.

A German contemporary of
Lightfoot, Christoph Ernst Luthardt, professor of Systematic Theology and New
Testament Exegesis at Leipzing, produced a volume of over 300 pages under the
title, St. John the Author of the Fourth Gospel. An English translation
by Caspar Rene Gregory (a former student of none other than Dr. Charles Hodge),
was published in 1875. This translation was also an enlargement and revision of
the original German. [An online PDF copy available HERE.]

Pages 29-165 of the
English translation focus on the external evidences. Pages 166-255 on the
internal evidences, with pages 196-255 providing comparisons between John's
Gospel and the Synoptics. Pages 256-275 compares John's Gospel with the book of
Revelation. The Appendix, pages 281-360, lists all the literature related to
the authorship and integrity of the Gospel of John published between 1792 and
1875—over 500 contributions!

The following conclusion
of Dr. Luthardt is worth noting:

We may close these inquiries, then, with this result : That, choosing the most moderate expression, nothing has come in our way that disproved the tradition as to the Johannean origin of the gospel, but much that served to confirm it. The decision of the Tubingen criticism and its successors, with which the acts of this critical process were declared to be closed, was far from corresponding with the real contents of the subject, and from being ratified by the facts. (St. John the Author of the
Fourth Gospel, Eng. trans. Caspar Rene Gregory, 1875, p. 278.)

Our next scholar is
another Englishman, and "dear friend" of Lightfoot's: Dr. Henry
William Watkins. He delivered the 1890 Bampton Lectures (Oxford) with
the title, Modern Criticism considered in its Relation to the Fourth Gospel. The lectures were
published the same year, and constituted 502 pages. [Online PDF copy HERE.] Watkins delivered a total of
eight lectures in this series. In his fifith lecture, pages 223-295, Watkins
delves into theories of a number of critical/liberal scholars of the 19th
century. He divides this lecture into three sections: "The New Tübingen School",
"The Partition Theories", and "The Negative School". The
beginning of the lecture is a quote from Mark's Gospel: "And not even so did their witness agree together." (Mark xiv. 59.) He
ends the lecture with the same quote. I cannot think of a better summation of
that group of critical/liberal scholars which Watkins surveys in this lecture.

In addition to Watkins
keen assessment, one modern day New Testament scholar, who supports Johannine authorship, adds some
additional important points concerning the critical/liberal scholarship of
those who reject it. Note the following from Dr. Leon Morris:

But we must bear in mind
that a good deal of it [liberal scholarship] appears to be due more to the
prevailing climate of opinion of our day than to any new evidence. It is
interesting to notice that Westcott, who firmly held to Johannine authorship,
was well aware of the three reasons A. M. Hunter gives for rejecting
it...Westcott long ago took notice of these (and other) points. But he held
that other considerations outweighed them, and that the best solution to the
problem on the basis of the evidence available is to see John the Apostle as
the author. Westcott has not so much been confuted as bypassed. Nobody seems
to have dealt adequately with his massive argument. (Leon Morris, The
Gospel According to John, 1971, pp. 8, 9 - bold emphasis mine.)

The Westcott mentioned
above by Dr. Morris is none other than Brooke Foss Westcott, of Westcott and
Hort fame. B. F. Westcott was yet another contemporary of Lightfoot, and a lifelong
friend. Westcott succeeded Lightfoot as Bishop of Durham in 1890. His
commentary on the Gospel of John, was first published in 1880 as part of The
Speakers Commentary series. A year later, it was published separately under
the title, The Gospel According To St. John, which, "corrected a
few misprints, defined more exactly a few references, and changed two or three
words and phrases which seemed liable to misapprehension." The first 35
pages of the Introduction defends the Johannine authorship of the Fourth
Gospel. Pages v-xxviii are devoted to the "Internal Evidence", and
xxviii-xl deals with, "External evidence as to the authorship".
Westcott's apologia is essentially a summation of Lightfoot's extensive
defense(s). I highly recommend Westcott's concise apologia to those folk who
are not inclined to read Lightfoot's much more extensive contributions. His, The
Gospel According To St. John, is available online in PDF format, HERE.

Literally dozens of other
scholars who support the Johannine authorship and historical reliability of the
Gospel of John could be added (see Watkins' sixth Bampton Lecture for a
number of examples), but I shall close with the mention of three of my favorite
commentaries on John's Gospel:

DavidAddendum: I have been quite busy over the last few
days preparing this post for publication. During this time, I had not checked
in on the Blogging Theology site, but did so shortly after publishing
this thread. It seems that Paul Williams has decided to transfer ownership of
the blog. For details on this, see THIS
POST.

11 comments:

Excellent David,You have gathered together a lot of great resources; and I look forward to looking at the links and studying the details more closely.It is great to see these older scholars and their defense of the Gospel of John and that the details are available on line.Those are some great quotes from Lightfoot.

A good series of short lectures on, not just the histrocity of John, but of all the Gospels is available on YouTube by Tim McGrew. He focuses on undersigned coincidences. His wife also wrote a book on that topic (including Acts and Paul's letters) entitled "Hidden in Plain Sight."

Her book builds off older works, like Paley's at the end of 18th century and Blunt's from the middle of the 19th.

With such a body of literature, which as Blomberg's new "The Historical Reliability of the New Testament" shows is still being made!, makes me wonder how typical atheists can just refer to the the Bible as mere myth. And thanks for the pdf links.

Thanks much for your kind comments, they are greatly appreciated. I spent a considerable amount of time in research and study for this post—well over 2,000 pages were read—and it was certainly worth the effort, for the end result is virtually identical to following I quoted from Godet:

>>The result of this renewed study has been in my case the ever more firm scientific conviction of the authenticity of the writing which the Church has handed down to us under the name of John...Truly, I can say that I have never felt this scientific assurance so confirmed as after this new examination of the proofs on which it rests and the reasons recently alleged against it.>>

So good to hear from you again. Will check out Tim McGrew's YouTube efforts tomorrow. I ordered Lydia's book just moments ago; it sounds quite interesting.

As for Dr. Blomberg, I read his The Historical Reliability of the Gospels way back in the late 80's when the first edition was published. Last year, he came out with, The Historical Reliability of the New Testament. I do not have that book, but may purchase it soon.

BTW, have you read the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society's All Scripture Is Inspired of God and Beneficial (1963/1983) ??? I found it to be a pretty good introduction to all 66 books of the Bible. If you do not have a copy and would like to read it, let me know, I have a PDF copy I can send you.

Hi David, thank you for the well written, useful and informative post. I also feel that the Church tradition about the authorship by the Apostle John cannot be easily dismissed. More, it makes a lot of difference whether the author is an eyewitness, and in particular one of the "inner circle" of the Apostles (Peter, James, John), rather than some unknown "author" of the first half of the 2nd century. Though we will never know the truth with scientific certainty, maybe there is something in Raymond Brown's theory that there is a nucleus by John the Apostle, followed by the work of a redactor, and concluded by an editor.

All this being premised, I would love you to answer a couple of questions, if I may:

1. If John the Apostle was the author, who do you think is hidden under the expression "disciple whom Jesus loved", or similar (see John 13:23; 19:26; 20:2,8; 21:7,20)?

2. Do you think that John's Gospel's supports the arguments of the trinitarians, in particular through some verses (John 10:30; 14:10-11,20)?

Thanks much for taking the time to comment. Please forgive my tardy response, but somehow, I did not notice your 08-16-17 comment until moments ago. You posted:

==Hi David, thank you for the well written, useful and informative post. I also feel that the Church tradition about the authorship by the Apostle John cannot be easily dismissed. More, it makes a lot of difference whether the author is an eyewitness, and in particular one of the "inner circle" of the Apostles (Peter, James, John), rather than some unknown "author" of the first half of the 2nd century.==

The external evidence (i.e. history/tradition) for the apostle John being the author of the gospel is overwhelming, and must be virtually ignored for one to deny it.

==Though we will never know the truth with scientific certainty, maybe there is something in Raymond Brown's theory that there is a nucleus by John the Apostle, followed by the work of a redactor, and concluded by an editor.==

The above theory is certainly within the realm of possibility, but I maintain that Johannine authorship has fewer unresolved 'difficulties' than any other proposition.

==All this being premised, I would love you to answer a couple of questions, if I may:

1. If John the Apostle was the author, who do you think is hidden under the expression "disciple whom Jesus loved", or similar (see John 13:23; 19:26; 20:2,8; 21:7,20)?==

Yes.

==2. Do you think that John's Gospel's supports the arguments of the trinitarians, in particular through some verses (John 10:30; 14:10-11,20)?==

Since I believe that there are number of different forms of trinitarianism, your 2nd question is difficult to answer. My take is that John's gospel supports the full divinity of the Son of God, while at the same time maintaining his subordination to God the Father.

Contributors

Total Pageviews

Getting History Right

The Reformers unequivocally rejected the teaching authority of the Roman Catholic Church. This left open the question of who should interpret Scripture. The Reformation was not a struggle for the right of private judgement. The Reformers feared private judgement almost as much as did the Catholics and were not slow to attack it in its Anabaptist manifestation. The Reformation principle was not private judgement but the perspicuity of the Scriptures. Scripture was ‘sui ipsius interpres’ and the simple principle of interpreting individual passages by the whole was to lead to unanimity in understanding. This came close to creating anew the infallible church…It was this belief in the clarity of Scripture that made the early disputes between Protestants so fierce. This theory seemed plausible while the majority of Protestants held to Lutheran or Calvinist orthodoxy but the seventeenth century saw the beginning of the erosion of these monopolies. But even in 1530 Casper Schwenckfeld could cynically note that ‘the Papists damn the Lutherans; the Lutherans damn the Zwinglians; the Zwinglians damn the Anabaptists and the Anabaptists damn all others.’ By the end of the seventeenth century many others saw that it was not possible on the basis of Scripture alone to build up a detailed orthodoxy commanding general assent. (A.N.S. Lane, “Scripture, Tradition and Church: An Historical Survey”, Vox Evangelica, Volume IX – 1975, pp. 44, 45 – bold emphasis mine.) [http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/vox/vol09/scripture_lane.pdf]

And this one thing at least is certain; whatever history teaches, whatever it omits, whatever it exaggerates or extenuates, whatever it says and unsays, at least the Christianity of history is not Protestantism. If ever there were a safe truth, it is this…To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant. – John Henry Newman